Artificial Sweeteners: Are the Scary Claims Real?

I'm an avid user of StumbleUpon - I'm kind of a random fact sort-of-guy.  So, being able to hit a button and learn about random stuff is pretty cool.  Although "Health" is one of my interests on there, I rarely spend much time reading the pages that come up.  Why?  They're either not very informative, a picture of someone exercising, or a blog/website that is based on false information.  Sometimes a good one will pop up here or there... but it's not very common.  There's been a certain topic that always catches my eye, however, and that's the use of artificial sweeteners.  Many media outposts have claimed them as chemicals that can cause us to be fat, carcinogenic, toxic, and are just flat out bad for us.  Some websites even say they would prefer to eat foods that are laced with sugar than to eat any amount of artificial sweetener.  Is this really true?                            Let's take a look:



Artificial sweeteners fall into a category of "non nutritive sweeteners" - meaning, they don't provide any nutrition in the form of calories, vitamins, minerals, etc.  The only thing that they provide is sweetness.  The Food and Drug Administration has come up with an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for each of the sweeteners, whose levels are set at 100 fold less than any known toxic levels.  In effect, consuming these sweeteners at the ADI you are no where near the known toxic levels and are safe from any potential harm.
Acesulfame-K - 15mg/kg
Aspartame - 50mg/kg
Saccharin - 5 mg/kg
Sucralose - 5 mg/kg

You may have noticed that these are units of measurement based on kg of your body mass.  Here's a simple calculator that will tell you how many cans of pop or packets of sweetener you can have in a day at the ADI.  That page doesn't really show you the whole picture since artificial sweeteners are being more commonly used beyond these two types of foods, but it puts it in perspective.  The UK's Food Standards Agency goes further about the discussion of ADI and states that it is not expected that everyone knows them and religiously calculates them and stays under their limit.  That's why they are set at 100 times less than the unsafe limit.

chemistryexplained.com

Non nutritive sweeteners are not all new:  a handful have been around for nearly four decades.  There are some new players to the field because companies are looking for sweeteners that provide better sweetening power that have fewer "off" tastes (like bitterness).  Essentially, the more palatable they can make a sweetener, the better the food tastes and the more product they will sell.

Now the baseline is set, let's get into the meat of the discussion:

In looking for sound research or good website articles, it should go without saying that there are some things that need to be considered:

1. Who is the publisher?  Do they have any conflicts of interest?
2. Is the article looking at the research as a whole, or picking and choosing research that supports a viewpoint? (You can truly find research to support any theory you want)
3. How old is the research?  Is it current? (I consider current anything that has been published within the last 10 years)
4. What could be other causes to the outcomes of the research?  Do they use good research methodology?

To me, this should be common sense, but it seems many bypass this understanding.  A couple of great, well-rounded, thoroughly researched meta-analysis, recently published articles by top-notch organizations (citations between the two are above 270):

Nonnutritive sweetener consumption in humans: effects on appetite and food intake and their putative mechanisms.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Published 2008

Nonnutritive Sweeteners: Current Use and Health Perspective.  American Heart Association and American Diabetic Association - Published June 2012.

Should You Sour on Aspartame? Professional Report by Tufts University - Published 2007.

Here's the lowdown on what they say about sweeteners.  "At this time, there are insufficient data to determine conclusively whether the use of NNS to displace caloric sweeteners in beverages and foods reduces added sugars or carbohydrate intakes, or  benefits appetite, energy balance, body weight, or cardiometabolic risk factors." (AHA and ADA article)

"There is no clear evidence that NNS augment appetite by activating cephalic phase responses, altering osmotic balance, or enhancing food palatability. Indeed, there is emerging evidence that selected NNS may stimulate the release of satiety hormones, although the link between these hormones and energy intake in free-living individuals is also open to debate. With respect to energy intake, there is no substantive evidence that inherent liking for sweetness or NNS activation of reward systems is problematic." (AJCN Article).


The last article written by Tufts speaks specifically about the toxicity of aspartame, a concern when aspartame either breaks down in the body or when it is heated about 86 degrees Faranheit.  "Besides cancer concerns, you might be prompted to avoid aspartame because of the claims rocketing around the Internet that it causes everything from lupus to multiple sclerosis to Gulf War Syndrome. These “dangers” are little more than urban legends, according to the American Council on Science and Health: “The scientific evidence does not support any of these alleged associations.”"

From these articles, the acute effects of sweeteners seems to have been found OK, but long term studies are needed to determine further risks.  Keep in mind, however, that's not really a radical statement.  Also, the correlation between artificial sweetener consumption and weight gain may not be causation:  instead it may be caused by the mindset, "I had a diet pop today instead of sugared, so I can have desert tonight".  People over consume sugar as a reward for substituting in artificial sweeteners.  This claim needs more research, but interesting nonetheless. 


There is certainly much more to these research articles that talk about specific concerns with non nutritive sweeteners, so I encourage you to read them - at least the abstracts and conclusions.


As with anything, keep in mind the source of the information your reading.  There are LOTS of bad articles out there about nutrition and exercise.  Don't fall into the trap of websites like these (it's an "all-natural" website looking to sell their products, founded and funded by Joseph Mercola, a known alternative medicine physician that believes sunscreen, drugs, and vaccinations are bad for you).  Media outlets such as newspapers, TV shows (like the TLC article in the first paragraph), blogs (that's ironic, isn't it?) aren't always trustworthy, either.


Feel free to share any further concerns you may have!


Cheers to looking for for the real facts!

The Power of Social Networks

Take a look at the TED presentation about the power of social networks.  Warning: it's roughly 18 minutes long, so make sure you've got some time on your hands!

The research into social networks is pretty interesting stuff, showing links on why choose certain actions that we do and how our extended network plays a role on our daily living.  This is also very profound in weight loss and weight gain:  the more that obesity becomes the "norm", the easier it is for individuals to accept a unhealthy lifestyle.  As health educators, wellness coordinators, personal trainers, coaches, etc., does this change our approach when counseling or helping someone through a lifestyle behavior change?  Should group counseling and interventions be a tool we use more often?  Just some points to ponder...

Corporate Wellness Participation is Less than Half: Study

Published in the Internation Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, research found that participation in corporate wellness programs range from 10% to 64%, median being 33% and typical was below 50%.

Although participation levels were low, the research did find that several key factors were influential in participation rates: incentives, multi-component strategies, and a focus on multiple behaviors.

Take note, my friend.

Gallup: Nearly Half of Americans Drink Soda Daily

From Gallup:

Nearly Half of Americans Drink Soda Daily

Two-thirds of Americans drink coffee daily, unchanged from 1999

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Nearly half of Americans, 48%, report drinking at least one glass of soda per day, while 52% say they normally drink no soda. Among those who drink any soda, the average daily amount is 2.6 glasses, with 28% drinking one glass a day, on average, and 20% drinking two or more glasses.

The latest results are from Gallup's annual Consumption Habits poll, conducted July 9-12. This is Gallup's first measure of daily soda consumption.

Coffee Consumption Flat Since 1999

The same survey finds roughly two-thirds of Americans, 64%, reporting that they typically drink at least one cup of coffee per day. Perhaps surprisingly, given the explosion of upscale coffee houses and specialty coffee products being marketed to consumers over the past decade, this is nearly identical to the 63% who drank coffee in 1999.

Additionally the number of coffee cups consumed by regular coffee drinkers has not increased, and may have even declined, with the average number of reported cups consumed by coffee drinkers registering 2.5 today, compared with 2.9 in 1999. Among all Americans, including those who drink no coffee, daily coffee consumption averages 1.6 cups today compared with 1.8 cups in 1999.

Frequent Soda Drinkers No Heavier Than Non-Soda Drinkers

Unlike coffee, which may have some health benefits when consumed in moderation, soda has no known health benefits, and the sugary form can contribute to obesity, diabetes, and other health problems. Health experts say even one glass of sugary soda per day is too much.

Despite that, there is essentially no difference in the self-reported weight situation of Americans who drink two or more glasses of soda compared with those who drink none: About four in 10 of each group says they are either very or somewhat overweight. Those who drink one soda per day are slightly more likely to classify themselves as overweight. This might be explained by heavier soda drinkers consuming more diet soda than those who drink only one soda per day; however, the current survey question did not specify the type of soda consumed.

Nonwhites and Young Adults Favor Soda Over Coffee

Men and women are about equally likely to drink coffee, however, by 69% to 45%, whites are much more likely than nonwhites to drink it. And there is a significant age skew, with coffee drinking much more prevalent among middle-aged and older Americans than among those aged 18 to 34.

The pattern is somewhat the inverse when it comes to soda. In line with higher rates of obesity among blacks and Hispanics, soda drinking is slightly more common among nonwhites than whites. Young adults aged 18 to 34 and men are also slightly more likely to consume soda than their counterparts.

Bottom Line

For better or worse from a health perspective, coffee and soda are both popular with Americans, but coffee is consumed by far more adults on a regular basis. It is especially popular with whites, middle-aged, and older adults, while nonwhites and younger adults tend slightly more toward soda consumption.

With so many new options for buying premium coffee available in recent years, including at upscale coffee shops and on the menu at fast food chains, one might assume Americans' coffee consumption has grown. And it's possible Americans are drinking larger cups or stronger coffee than they did in the past. But in terms of sheer number of cups, the rate of coffee drinking is largely unchanged, with Americans currently averaging 1.6 cups per day.

As for soda, the U.S. beverage industry has recently been reporting a decline in Americans' consumption of carbonated beverages, as well as a switch by consumers to more consumption of diet soda. Nevertheless, the majority of soda sales continue to be of the sugary variety, and with nearly half of Americans drinking at least one glass daily -- with even higher rates seen among men, young adults, and minorities --the health implications for Americans remains significant.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 9-12, 2012 with a random sample of 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phones numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone-only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit http://www.gallup.com/.

"Health Promotions in the Workplace" Review

Yup, another book review!  However, this one leans more towards the textbook category.  I was a bit skeptical of what I was going to receive when I bought a used edition off of Amazon for about $0.75 when it retails for $80+.  But, I thought I would give it a shot and was really pleased as to what I received.

The book outlines all of the design phases of wellness initiatives, the maintenance, management, evaluation, strategies, intervention programs, and perspectives of health promotion in different settings (small business, elderly, global and the future of workplace health promotion).  Overall, it seems to cover just about anything you need to implement an effective program.  Here's my gripe, however:

The latest edition was published in 2001.

I consider research evidence to be "old" when it reaches the 10 year mark.  While much of the information is good in this book, it is outdated.  The previous edition to the current was published 8 years prior, so I'm not sure why they are taking so long to publish a new edition.  If and when they do, I will most likely be finding myself buying it to get the latest information.  Here's why I do like this book:

It is fair about its assessment of health promotion and workplace wellness.  If evidence is clear enough, it will tell you so.  It tells you when there is enough evidence to support an idea and when there is enough to proceed with caution.  It also uses evidence and research to recommend different types of wellness program and activities.  Take the weight management, as an example.  There are many different ways to implement, from financial incentives, lay vs. professional help, weekly interventions vs. intensive, worksite vs. clinic and to top it all off, the cost/effectiveness of each.  Not only that, but the book goes into detail why such an intervention is necessary in the workplace, citing research that shows the prevalence of obesity and it's health risks.  Basically, it goes from the start - convincing upper management that this intervention is necessary - to finish.

This really isn't a book you can read front to back and be done with.  I read the first several chapters, and that was about all I could consume and make use of.  The remaining parts are reference, atleast to me, and will be used when these situations come up on planning.  There aren't many reviews on Amazon, but I distinctly remember one wellness coordinator saying they use this book all the time and come back to it as reference.  Hope you can find it useful, too!

Milken Institutes, "An Unhealthy America"

While writing some well-being emails for work, I ran across this interesting research done by Milken Institute.  I've never heard of Milken Institute, but some web searches show that it is a reputable, non-profit, non-partisan economic think tank.  The original founder looks a bit shady (Mike Milken, who pleaded guilty to six accounts of securities and tax evasion).  However, the reputation of the Institute seems to have outweighed the founder's woes as it seems to be highly regarded and the accomplishments it has made have been profound.

This research and summary not only looks at the current status of America's health, but looks at trends and projects what the health status will be beyond 2020.  Although not factual and will only be proven with time, it is interesting to see what it will be like if current trends continue.  Just a word of warning:  it's not good.

Here's an interesting tidbit that can whet your palate:
They researched 7 different diseases that accounted for an economic impact of $1.3 trillion annually.  Of this amount $1.1 trillion are due to lost productivity (workplace wellness, people!)

There are some really, really good graphs in there, as well:

This graph also shows the importance and the reason why so many workplace wellness initiatives are trying to find ways to calculate presenteeism.  This metric can make or break a business, and is surely one of greatest things impacted by a wellness movement.

Take a look at it... and let me know if there should be red flags about this institute (ethics, conductivity, etc.).

"Why & How People Change Health Behaviors" - A Review

My parents would be dumbfounded to read this post.  "Nate writing a book review?!?!"  You see, when growing up, my parents trying to get me to read books was like trying to pull my teeth out.  Unless if it was "Nate the Great" or a picture book, there was no way I was laying my eyes on it.  But, when I found a purpose to read, I became more inclined to take to the pages.  I read now to become more educated, to learn and to become better at what I do.

I recently wrapped up a short reading of "Why & How People Change Health Behaviors" by Joseph Leutzinger and John Harris.  I really shouldn't say it is "written" by these two gents, and here's why:

The book is based off of research that the authors have conducted.  They have completed interviews of 44 individuals that have undergone some health behavior change and have kept that behavior change for some time now.  Common health behavior changes in this book were: quit smoking, weight loss, increase physical activity, diabetes control, depression, etc.  The responses from the interviews are directly transcribed to this book... literally.  Even some grammatical and spelling errors found their way in there (I would assume that these would have been corrected before publishing, but maybe not),  This gives the book a very unique feel and a candid view of the individual, their personality, and what it took for them to accomplish their behavior change.

This was both a good and bad thing.  Good thing for the reasons above, bad thing because it wasn't what I was expecting or hoping for.  When ordering this off of Amazon, I was expecting to find a book that would, at the least, contain a meta-analysis of some good research and provide some great insight into counselling individuals on behavior change.  Even though it didn't fulfill this hope, it was still a good book to read and did provide some thought provoking ideas for myself.

Some themes that I took from this book:

1. There was almost always a trigger for the behavior change.  Something happened in that individual's life that acted as a catalyst for the change.  Deaths, loved ones getting sick, birth of a child, etc.
2. Only 1 or 2 times was this trigger a doctor or an authoritative figure that told them they need to change.  Usually these people were ignored until the trigger happened.  This is important to keep in mind for health educators, personal trainers, doctors, etc.  The initial motivation to change something must come from the individual, and not from an outside source.  Their mind seems to have to "click" and it take a powerful and emotional event for this to happen.
3. Motivation must come from the individual and the reason for the behavior change must be personal.  Many times the interviewees said "you must change for yourself and not for anyone else".
4. Support group > mentors.  Many people said their support group(s) (coworkers, family, friends) were essential to their success, but very few actually had mentors.
5. Environment was essential for the majority of them.  Some individuals even had to change their environment to be successful.  Meaning, they had to change jobs, move somewhere else, find a new church, etc.  
6. Personality typing seems to play a critical role in how the person initiates and maintains their behavior change.  As a result, learning how to personality type and how to use their personality type to help them with behavior change is probably something I will look into further. 
7. For the corporate wellness coordinator:  a handful of individuals said that their workplace wellness program was useful or integral in their success.  Whether it was a weight loss program, smoking cessation program or an on-site fitness facility, these people said it made it very easy to start or continue their behavior change.

All in all, it was an interesting book.  Not something I would put at the top of my reading list, but definitely a useful tool to have and it did spur some thought provoking questions.

Cheers to reading and being more educated!

Video: 23 and 1/2 Hours a Day

Great video about the importance of any physical activity.  If you or someone you know is struggling with exercise, remember that it just takes one step to start!

Credits:

Conceived, written, and presented by Dr. Mike Evans
Illustrated by Liisa Sorsa 
Produced, directed, and filmed by Nick De Pencier 
Picture and sound edit by David Schmidt 
Gaffer, Martin Wojtunik 
Whiteboard construction by James Vanderkleyn
Production assistant, Chris Niesing 
©2011 Michael Evans and Mercury Films Inc.

Pushing Boundaries

Just to update you all on the progress of getting on-site exercise equipment at our worksite:

I just received an email from the corporate office saying that on-site exercise equipment is not permitted.  The wording was pretty much, "no way, no how".  Bummer!

During the time I was waiting to get permission, I had secured a lawyer that could potentially help me write a liabilities release form.  I still plan on pursuing it, because this topic will come up again.  Plus, it is good personal experience to draft this type of legal form.

I suppose life goes on, but I was pretty sad that I got this news.  Remember my post about turn a "no" to a "yes"... well, I'm going to still live by this philosophy.  I'll keep pushing the boundary to make things happen!

Just Beginning the Path to a Wellness Movement? Read This First!

There are good resources and then there are superb resources.  This just so happens to be a superb resource.  If you are building a wellness plan from the ground up, read this article by WELCOA's magazine, "Absolute Advantage".  It's an 88 page-long, detailed outline on how, where, and when to do certain tasks for starting a movement.  Stuck on how to do a needs assessment?  This article will tell you why you need to do it and how to design and implement one.  In most cases, the article will also point you further to other sources for additional help.  The article or "guide" is meant to be comprehensive and is based upon the statistics of more than 600 wellness programs.  I haven't gotten to the second part yet (an entirely separate article dedicated to the later stages of wellness implementation), but I am sure it will prove just as useful.  This article is definitely a must read.

Cheers to superb resources that provide top-of-the-line help!

Journal Rankings

Did you know in the category of "Sports Sciences" there are 92 periodic (presumably peer-reviewed) journals?  "Nutrition and Dietetics" rakes in 77.  Are all of them trustworthy?  If you know anything about some certain journals and their representing companies, you would know not to trust every journal, nor every article in all journals.  How can you tell which journals are better than others?  Take a look at these two websites:

Journal-Ranking.com

Eigenfactor.org

These two websites, in conjunction with each other, will provide you with a good amount of data on the trustworthiness of particular journals and their rankings among journals in the same field.  For Journal-Ranking, exercise related journals will be listed under "Sport Science" and nutrition will be under "Nutrition and Dietetics".  Once you find a journal of interest, head over to Eigenfactor to get a second viewpoint and to view the cost effectiveness of that journal.  Eigenfactor has some cool graphs, but it was pretty hard to get to the fields that I was interested in, but they were certainly eye popping and informative!

Wellness Proposals - Another Useful Tool

For those of us that are starting a wellness movement or thinking about starting one, any helpful advice or resource is great to put in our toolbag.  Whether it's friends, people in our professional network, or a website that can help give us a guiding light, anything that might prove useful we hold on to for future reference.  

 ran across this website the other day, and it's got some great information not only starting a movement, but how to evaluate it and such.  Take a look at Wellness Proposals at wellnesproposals.com, they have some good free information on there (including a useful blog), but they also have some paid services.

Edit: I will be adding this one to the "Useful Links" sidebar for easy access!

The War on High Fructose Corn Syrup

The war has gotten to the point where the Corn Refiners Association has made an attempt (and I should say that it has failed) to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to avoid further negative connotations this embattled energy source has endured.   Questions about this sugar and non-caloric sweeteners are the most common questions that people ask me in the area of nutrition.  People are worried that this sugar substance is going to cause poor health, and they have good reasons to believe so.  If you have listened to mass media and/or read diet magazines or websites, you have probably witnessed the articles accusing high fructose corn syrup for part of the obesity epidemic, diabetes, and other health concerns.

High fructose corn syrup is under a lot of scrutiny, scrutiny that I believe any food product should undergo.  I’m not a fan of taking specific ingredients out of your diet, or adding this vegetable because of it’s “cancer fighting” properties, rather, I praise well-rounded diets that include a variety of different foods yet still includes those triple chocolate brownies that you oh-so dearly admire (in moderation, of course!).   But, what exactly is there to fear about high fructose corn syrup?

First, what is high fructose corn syrup?

The plain old table sugar (sucrose) that we are used to contains an even amount of two “simple” sugars: glucose and fructose.  These are naturally occurring sugars – glucose is most commonly consumed from grains (in the form of very long chains), fruits, vegetables and dairy products.  Glucose is rarely consumed in it’s single molecular form, however, it is more commonly consumed in part of a chain such as found in breads and grains, or linked to another sugar molecule such as fructose.  Fructose is commonly found in fruits and vegetables, hence the name.

In the process of taking cornstarch and making it into high fructose corn syrup, manufacturers have the option to create different types of high fructose corn syrup: a 55% blend of fructose and 45% glucose (used in drinks because of physical properties) or a 42% fructose blend with 58% glucose (used in baked goods because, again, of it’s physical properties). 

In the 1960’s and 70’s, the use of high fructose corn syrup was nearly nonexistent.  As the refining process became more efficient, it started to be cheaper for manufacturers to substitute beet or cane sugar with high fructose corn syrup.  Thus, consumption increased, and incidentally, so did obesity and other comorbidities.  The million dollar question, the one that a lot of research efforts are focusing on, is whether this was a coincidence or if, in fact, high fructose corn syrup plays a role in weight gain and the incidence of other diseases and illnesses. 

Pointing towards charts and data that show high fructose corn syrup consumption has increased dramatically really doesn’t show you the whole picture.  This is the argument made by most people, that this increase in consumption can be blamed for many of the health issues of Americans.  However, as HFCS has increased (page 10), sucrose consumption has decreased, and in a very parallel fashion with HFCS.  In effect, Americans are not consuming more or less of fructose, rather, its consumption has stayed fairly constant over the last 3 decades (data was never accumulated before then).

Some people are skeptical of the manufacturing process of HFCS, that this in itself, causes unknown changes within the body that cause weight gain.  Physiologically, this isn’t possible.  No matter where the source of carbohydrate comes from, glucose is processed like glucose, fructose like fructose, lactose like lactose.  The body cannot decipher the source of the molecule.  On the flip side, research has shown that fructose is more readily available for processing (either for immediate energy needs or transforming it to fat) in high fructose corn syrup when compared to sucrose.  This is due to the fact that some fructose is “free” in HFCS, whereas in sucrose it is always bound to another glucose molecule. Keep in mind that the Princeton article was looking for psychological effects of fructose, and so they did not restrict consumption amounts.   This area is in need of more research to find out if the data can stay consistent and what exactly causes the changes within the body.  How’s that chemistry 101 treatin’ ya?

What should you make of all this?  Considering that many scientific articles looking at meta-analyses of HFCS research, at this time there is nothing to fear (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Critical Reviews of Food Science and Nutrition, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Center for Disease Control).  Eating a well-balanced diet that includes the limitation of added sugars will already significantly reduce any potential adverse health effects if HFCS was found to have a significant impact on obesity or other illnesses, giving you benefits that far outweigh any harm from HFCS.

When people ask me about HFCS, I tell them to avoid sugary drinks and other foods with added sugars.  If necessary, consume them in moderation.  It isn't a health recommendation solely based upon high fructose corn syrup, but a recommendation based on sugars as a whole.

Cheers to research and continued advancements in the area of nutritional science!

The Smoker's Dilemma

Wake up and grab your first cigarette.  11 minutes.  After breakfast, another cigarette.  11 more minutes.  By the time the day is over, the average smoker will have shorten their life by nearly 4 hours.  
Ready for an onslaught of statistics?

While watching fireworks for the first time with my 11 month-old son, the two ladies in front of us seemed to be oblivious to the above numbers.  In the two hour span that we watched the outhouse races and the fireworks show, the ladies each reduced their life expectancy by 44 minutes.  This, combined the cost of a pack of cigarettes (in Nebraska, it's somewhere in the $5 range, New York is near $11), the additional costs of the increase in disease burden, and the added health risks that are imposed on the surrounding people the numbers are completely staggering.
Smoking, by far, is the #1 preventable cause of death, with 443,000 people dying prematurely due to this habit (this accounts to 18% of all deaths in the U.S.).  The diseases and illnesses caused by smoking costs the U.S. $96 billion in healthcare costs.  Taking this number and dividing it by the national population, it costs you, the individual, $303 per year.  Have a family of five?  No one smokes?  You're still paying roughly $1500 to help pay for the healthcare of those that smoke (these numbers include the cost of stop smoking campaigns).  
In a weird twist of statistics, some estimate that healthcare costs would actually rise.  According to this study, costs would rise 7% for men and 4% for women.  Why?  People would live longer and contract other illnesses that would put a greater weight on healthcare spending.  But, this isn't a story about cost vs. savings, it's a story about the impact that this habit has on your health and the health of those around you.  
If you are a wellness coordinator/coach/educator, this could be your number one fight.  Depending on the demographics, smoking could be costing your company big money.  If this is the case, smoking cessation initiatives are a must - look into what your employer offers, their health insurance company may have a program, or even local groups and classes.  Also, look into being a smoke free campus (or tobacco free) - no smoking in or near the workplace, including the parking lot.  It may be a long process to become smoke free, but it is definitely worth it.
I don't ask people to stop smoking, I plea with them.  It is unimaginable the amount of mental toughness that is required to quit such an addiction, but to me, there is no question as to whether it should happen.

Cheers to those who are empowered to quit their tobacco addiction!